Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the legal heirs of the original tenant, Gondu Ramu Pandit (deceased), challenging the judgment and order dated 26th October 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Jalgaon, in Revision Application No.48 of 1989. The suit land, Survey No.44/1 and 44/2 admeasuring 1 hectare and 17 R., assess Rs.9-31 paise, situated at village Kochur, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, was previously held and owned by some of the respondents. The original tenant, Gondu Ramu Pandit, had applied for purchase of the land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Court fixed the purchase price and directed the tenant to deposit the amount within a specified period. The tenant failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. The landlords (respondents) contended that the tenant's right to purchase was extinguished. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision filed by the landlords and set aside the order of the Tenancy Court, holding that the tenant's right to purchase was lost. The petitioners (legal heirs of the tenant) challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court framed the issue whether the tenant's right to purchase under Section 32G is extinguished by mere non-payment of the purchase price. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in law as the tenant's right is not automatically extinguished and the Tribunal should have considered the tenant's willingness to pay. The respondents supported the Tribunal's order. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and held that the right of the tenant to purchase the land under Section 32G is a substantive right and is not lost merely because the tenant failed to deposit the purchase price within the time fixed. The court observed that the Tribunal ought to have given the tenant an opportunity to pay the amount or considered whether the tenant was willing to pay. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and restored the order of the Tenancy Court, directing that the tenant be given reasonable time to deposit the purchase price.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Purchase of Land by Tenant - Section 32G Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The tenant's right to purchase the land under Section 32G is not automatically extinguished by non-payment of the purchase price within the period fixed by the Tribunal; the Tribunal must consider whether the tenant is willing to pay and may grant reasonable time. The Revenue Tribunal's order setting aside the purchase was set aside as it failed to consider the tenant's willingness to pay. (Paras 1-10)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can interfere with orders of subordinate tribunals if they suffer from jurisdictional error or manifest illegality. The impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was quashed as it was based on a misinterpretation of the tenancy law. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in holding that the tenant's right to purchase the suit land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was extinguished due to non-payment of the purchase price within the stipulated period.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 26th October 1990, and restored the order of the Tenancy Court. The court directed that the tenant be given reasonable time to deposit the purchase price.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Purchase of land by tenant
- Section 32G Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Limitation for payment
- Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (12) 14
Writ Petition No.1999 of 1991
Shri V.T. Chaudhari for Petitioners, Smt. V.A. Shinde for Respondent No.7, Shri A.G. Talhar for respondents (absent)
Gondu Ramu Pandit (deceased) through L.Rs. Dr. J.G. Pandit (deceased) through L.Rs. Rahul Jawaharlal Pandit, Sau. Indira Balkrishna Mohane, Sau Surekha Sahebrao Patil, Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal Pandit
Hasan Nathu Tadvi, Zipru Lalkha Tadvi (deceased) through L.Rs. Tahara Zipru Tadvi etc., Sardar Ughadu Tadvi (deceased) through L.Rs. Bismilla Sardar Tadvi etc., Amir Dagadu Tadvi (deceased) through L.Rs. Daut Amir Tadvi etc., Ramjan Mahitap Tadvi, The Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (formal party), The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a tenancy matter.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (legal heirs of the deceased tenant) sought quashing of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order dated 26th October 1990 and restoration of the Tenancy Court's order allowing the tenant to purchase the suit land.
Filing Reason
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the Tenancy Court's order on the ground that the tenant failed to deposit the purchase price within the stipulated period, thereby extinguishing his right to purchase.
Previous Decisions
The Tenancy Court had fixed the purchase price and directed the tenant to deposit the amount within a specified period. The tenant failed to deposit. The landlords filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which allowed the revision and set aside the Tenancy Court's order.
Issues
Whether the tenant's right to purchase the suit land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is extinguished by mere non-payment of the purchase price within the period fixed by the Tenancy Court.
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the Tenancy Court's order without considering the tenant's willingness to pay.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the tenant's right to purchase under Section 32G is a substantive right and is not automatically lost by non-payment; the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to pay.
Respondents supported the Tribunal's order, contending that the tenant's failure to deposit within time extinguished his right.
Ratio Decidendi
The right of a tenant to purchase the land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is not extinguished merely because the tenant failed to deposit the purchase price within the time fixed by the Tenancy Court. The Tribunal must consider the tenant's willingness to pay and may grant reasonable time for payment. The order of the Revenue Tribunal was set aside as it suffered from a jurisdictional error.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Jalgaon in REV.TRB.48 OF 1989.
The suit land was previously held and owned by some of the respondents and that the deceased original tenant had applied for purchase of the suit land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Procedural History
The original tenant applied for purchase of suit land under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Tenancy Court fixed the purchase price and directed deposit within a specified period. The tenant failed to deposit. The landlords filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which allowed the revision and set aside the Tenancy Court's order on 26th October 1990. The legal heirs of the tenant filed the present writ petition in 1991. The High Court allowed the petition on 1st December 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 32G
- Constitution of India: Article 227
